Pakistan to meet militants

[Bozita]

Source: Guardian UK

Pakistan to meet militants
US fears as new coalition government plans to negotiate with its 'own people' - the extremists

Jason Burke
The Observer, Sunday March 23 2008


Pakistan's newly elected government will seek to negotiate with Islamic militants and demilitarise the campaign against them to end the violence racking the country, leaders of the major coalition parties who will take power next week have said.

The explicit declaration of a desire to talk to extremists and to reduce the role of the army marks a major change for the strategically crucial country and will confirm fears among American policymakers that the heavy defeat of President Pervez Musharraf at recent elections will lead to Pakistan scaling back its support for the US-led 'war on terror' in the region. Pakistan's rugged western frontier is seen as a haven not just for Pakistani militants but also for al-Qaeda and the Taliban and has been the site of fierce combat for several years.

This week a new Prime Minister and cabinet is expected to be sworn in in Islamabad, following an accord between opposition parties. The party of assassinated former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto yesterday nominated the former National Assembly speaker Yousaf Raza Gilani as its candidate for premier. The unprecedented 'grand coalition' he is likely to lead is expected to seek ways to permanently remove Musharraf, a loyal US ally who was re-elected president for a five-year term last year, from power.

'The Musharraf era and everything that was wrong with that era is now behind us,' said one Pakistani parliamentarian yesterday. 'We are not going to throw the baby out with the water, but a lot is going to be different.'

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/pakistan

[ohio2007]

1. "Pakistan relies on America for massive aid, particularly to the country's powerful military. "

snip
Yet most ordinary Pakistanis believe their army is fighting 'someone else's war' and that casualties of the militants' bombs are paying the price.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/pakistan

The new Pakistan government doesn't need that corrupting US aid anymore. It failed to address the problem.

[ohio2007]

2. The new boss is the same as the old boss

PAKISTAN
With a Quiet Blessing, U.S. Attacks on Al Qaeda Spike

The United States has stepped up its use of pilotless planes to strike at Qaeda targets along Pakistan's rugged border area, a measure that in the past drew protests from President Pervez Musharraf but now has his government's tacit approval.

snip
http://www.newsweek.com/id/128617

[Igel]

3. Yes.

This was in the Pak media a few days after the PPP and Sharif's party beat the PML-Q.

It was when people were still saying how horrible Musharraf was, daring to negotiate and give the militants a chance to increase their power, how short-sighted and idiotic it was to press for ceasefires and agreements. The PPP and Sharif had made an issue out of this: Musharraf had been too weak.

Of course, this was at the same time that the PPP charged that Musharraf was also too aggressive, fighting for Americans against good, loyal Pakistanis. And Sharif was saying Musharraf was too aggressive, fighting for whoever against good, loyal Muslims. (He, after all, is a bit of a conservative Muslim + nationalist.)

The problem was that Musharraf, presumably, should have been more aggressive early on, able to bargain from a position of strength. Now that it was later and the fighting was unpopular--and succeeding--it was wrong. (added on edit: Of course, when it was earlier and he sent in the Army, the PPP and Sharif were adamant that it was too early to send in the army, and managed to get demonstrations going against taking a strong stance against the militants. Musharraf backed down. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

What gets reported isn't what the parties said, but what the reporters wanted the West to know the parties said.

And, in clever in/out-group politicking, the reason for their being attacked now is that the extremists are engaging in displacement: There's no dishonor in seeking an accommodation, since the militants aren't actually attacking Pakistanis per se, but Pakistanis as surrogates for the Americans. The solution, therefore, is to close ranks against the militants. It's a nice fiction, one that sells because in-group violence is a nasty thing, and very anti-Islam. The non-takfiri groups are having troubles, their 'non-takfiri-ness' castrates them. It's also nice because it provides a principled reason for the continuing violence after the PPP/Sharif groups won power: No, they're respected, the attacks continue because of American policies. (Of course, this might be a problem in 6 months when things haven't changed--or perhaps things will change. Sharif always managed to quickly find the person who could step in and contact a militant hostage-taker to arrange a deal: He has connections with 'that camp', almost as many as the MMA does.)

A few utterances by Zardari and Sharif ring of American politics. The militants will deal with them, because of who they are--not Musharraf. And the militants will honor agreements with them, because they represent the change that everybody wants, including the militants. They can unite the militants, without actually bargaining: It's all about them--the individuals in power, not their principles or the populace. Feudalism. Blech.